Re: Apache resigns from JCP

Le 10/12/2010 03:58, Brick Red a écrit :
> Hi buddies,

Apache Foundation was an important voice in the JCP regarding "Java
Communitie". Its departure is a real loss for that, but I would say it's
"just" in the normal course of what Oracle bought Java for - PI and
short term money. Of course, that may damage Java/JVM ecosystem as a
whole in the medium term.

That being said, I just don't see what are the link between ASF decision
and your two questions ?

> What impacts will it bring scala?

Not even the least direct one, Scala and ASF are in no way related, no
more than Scala and JCP are. So, appart for long-term and unclear
impacts linked to Java ecosystem being less appealing, I don't
understand what you asked.

> Is reality it that scala move to a new VM? Or to develop a VM for scala?

There is at least three main reasons to not want to develop a VM for Scala:
- it's a HUGE task. I mean, Google is just starting to have a rather OK
VM after several years (4 ?), infinite money and among the greatest
developpers ;
- Scala could be port to other VMs (CLR, for example);
- and finally... The current JVMs aren't going to desapear because some
foundation left some organization, so what is just the link with the
subject ?

Re: Apache resigns from JCP

Apache Foundation was an important voice in the JCP regarding "Java Communitie". Its departure is a real loss for that, but I would say it's "just" in the normal course of what Oracle bought Java for - PI and short term money. Of course, that may damage Java/JVM ecosystem as a whole in the medium term.

That being said, I just don't see what are the link between ASF decision and your two questions ?

What impacts will it bring scala?

Not even the least direct one, Scala and ASF are in no way related, no more than Scala and JCP are. So, appart for long-term and unclear impacts linked to Java ecosystem being less appealing, I don't understand what you asked.

Is reality it that scala move to a new VM? Or to develop a VM for scala?

There is at least three main reasons to not want to develop a VM for Scala:
- it's a HUGE task. I mean, Google is just starting to have a rather OK VM after several years (4 ?), infinite money and among the greatest developpers ;
- Scala could be port to other VMs (CLR, for example);
- and finally... The current JVMs aren't going to desapear because some foundation left some organization, so what is just the link with the subject ?

Apache Foundation was an important voice in the JCP regarding "Java Communitie". Its departure is a real loss for that, but I would say it's "just" in the normal course of what Oracle bought Java for - PI and short term money. Of course, that may damage Java/JVM ecosystem as a whole in the medium term.

That being said, I just don't see what are the link between ASF decision and your two questions ?

What impacts will it bring scala?

Not even the least direct one, Scala and ASF are in no way related, no more than Scala and JCP are. So, appart for long-term and unclear impacts linked to Java ecosystem being less appealing, I don't understand what you asked.

Is reality it that scala move to a new VM? Or to develop a VM for scala?

There is at least three main reasons to not want to develop a VM for Scala:
- it's a HUGE task. I mean, Google is just starting to have a rather OK VM after several years (4 ?), infinite money and among the greatest developpers ;
- Scala could be port to other VMs (CLR, for example);
- and finally... The current JVMs aren't going to desapear because some foundation left some organization, so what is just the link with the subject ?

Apache Foundation was an important voice in the JCP regarding "Java Communitie". Its departure is a real loss for that, but I would say it's "just" in the normal course of what Oracle bought Java for - PI and short term money. Of course, that may damage Java/JVM ecosystem as a whole in the medium term.

That being said, I just don't see what are the link between ASF decision and your two questions ?

What impacts will it bring scala?

Not even the least direct one, Scala and ASF are in no way related, no more than Scala and JCP are. So, appart for long-term and unclear impacts linked to Java ecosystem being less appealing, I don't understand what you asked.

Is reality it that scala move to a new VM? Or to develop a VM for scala?

There is at least three main reasons to not want to develop a VM for Scala:
- it's a HUGE task. I mean, Google is just starting to have a rather OK VM after several years (4 ?), infinite money and among the greatest developpers ;
- Scala could be port to other VMs (CLR, for example);
- and finally... The current JVMs aren't going to desapear because some foundation left some organization, so what is just the link with the subject ?

Re: Apache resigns from JCP

On 10/12/2010 03:58, Brick Red wrote:
> Is reality it that scala move to a new VM? Or to develop a VM for scala?

I would rather see a compiler to produce native code (or portable C) from Scala code...
But of course, that would need to rewrite huge parts of the Java API, since Scala heavily
(to my knowledge) rely on it (collections) or Scala programs expect them to be here
(String, Locale, Swing, etc.). So I won't hold my breath for that.

Note: to my knowledge, Scala already works (more or less?) on another VM, the .NET ecosystem.

Re: Apache resigns from JCP

> On 10/12/2010 03:58, Brick Red wrote:
>>
>> Is reality it that scala move to a new VM? Or to develop a VM for scala?
>
> I would rather see a compiler to produce native code (or portable C) from
> Scala code...
> But of course, that would need to rewrite huge parts of the Java API, since
> Scala heavily (to my knowledge) rely on it (collections) or Scala programs
> expect them to be here (String, Locale, Swing, etc.). So I won't hold my
> breath for that.

GCJ can do that today & has been able to for quite some time - IKVM
can do a similar thing but generating .Net IL rather than machine
code.

Historically the open source classes for the JVM itself were the issue
(e.g. GNU classpath used to have some bugs) though Apache Harmony is
pretty solid these days (& used in Android for a similar purpose,
turning bytecode into machine code). Though given the JCP implosion &
Google lawsuit am not sure how long term this approach will be; though
at least its a viable migration strategy :)

Is reality it that scala move to a new VM? Or to develop a VM for scala?

I would rather see a compiler to produce native code (or portable C) from Scala code...
But of course, that would need to rewrite huge parts of the Java API, since Scala heavily (to my knowledge) rely on it (collections) or Scala programs expect them to be here (String, Locale, Swing, etc.). So I won't hold my breath for that.

> Historically the open source classes for the JVM itself were the issue
> (e.g. GNU classpath used to have some bugs) though Apache Harmony is
> pretty solid these days (& used in Android for a similar purpose,
> turning bytecode into machine code).

Not sure if you actually meant that, but to avoid confusion, it's
worth making it clear that Android does not use AOT compilation to
native code. The dex tool just converts the bytecode into another
platform independent format, Android still relies on an interpreter
and JIT at runtime.

Re: Apache resigns from JCP

> On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 10:56 AM, James Strachan
>> Historically the open source classes for the JVM itself were the issue
>> (e.g. GNU classpath used to have some bugs) though Apache Harmony is
>> pretty solid these days (& used in Android for a similar purpose,
>> turning bytecode into machine code).
>
> Not sure if you actually meant that, but to avoid confusion, it's
> worth making it clear that Android does not use AOT compilation to
> native code. The dex tool just converts the bytecode into another
> platform independent format, Android still relies on an interpreter
> and JIT at runtime.

Agreed. Harmony is only used to supply the Java bytecode for the
"java.*" and "javax.*" classes; Android then does its own thing from
then on.

Its interesting to note though that Android, GWT, IKVM and GCJ all
show that its pretty easy to migrate Java code to another platform/VM;
Harmony provides the Java bytecode, then you just need to figure out
how to transform the Java bytecode to something else (Davlik bytecode,
JavaScript, .NET IL, machine code respectively) - then add the little
bit of the JDK which is not implemented in bytecode (the small number
of C functions in the JDK).

Though its pretty hard to create a super fast HotSpot style VM. If you
did Oracle would probably sue you for patents anyway :)

Re: Apache resigns from JCP

In long term view for JDK, Oracle will change java to close step by step. I worry that it could not be free to run scala code on JVM, it will impact the development of java, scala and jvm-based language. I very like scala, because it is productive and good performance. So I threw the questions.

As we know, ASF provided a lot of helpful components for java development, for example, ant, maven, log4j, axis, tomcat and so on. Its resign from JCP. Scala can smoothly interact with java, so the projects based on scala and using the components could be impacted. The impact could be side-effect for scala.

Apache Foundation was an important voice in the JCP regarding "Java Communitie". Its departure is a real loss for that, but I would say it's "just" in the normal course of what Oracle bought Java for - PI and short term money. Of course, that may damage Java/JVM ecosystem as a whole in the medium term.

That being said, I just don't see what are the link between ASF decision and your two questions ?

What impacts will it bring scala?

Not even the least direct one, Scala and ASF are in no way related, no more than Scala and JCP are. So, appart for long-term and unclear impacts linked to Java ecosystem being less appealing, I don't understand what you asked.

Is reality it that scala move to a new VM? Or to develop a VM for scala?

There is at least three main reasons to not want to develop a VM for Scala:
- it's a HUGE task. I mean, Google is just starting to have a rather OK VM after several years (4 ?), infinite money and among the greatest developpers ;
- Scala could be port to other VMs (CLR, for example);
- and finally... The current JVMs aren't going to desapear because some foundation left some organization, so what is just the link with the subject ?

Re: Apache resigns from JCP

In long term view for JDK, Oracle will change java to close step by step.

And you know this how? While it's reasonable to assume that Oracle will seek to monetize Java, but Oracle has a reasonable track record of using the likes of the GPL to monetize open source software.

I worry that it could not be free to run scala code on JVM, it will impact the development of java, scala and jvm-based language.

This is 100% divergent from Oracle's public and private stand on JVM languages in general, and Scala in particular. Oracle is likely to be looking to end the JCP, but in recent years, the JCP has been a failure. It's the same group of people making the same bad decisions (see JSR-299 http://jcp.org/en/jsr/detail?id=299 which is the same failed patterns that we saw with CORBA and Enterprise Java Beans). Allowing the JCP to self-destruct isn't a bad thing.

On the other hand, Oracle has been particularly supportive of alternative JVM languages. Adam Messinger ( http://www.linkedin.com/in/adammessinger ) was pretty blunt at the JVM Languages Summit this year about Java the language reaching it's logical end and how Oracle is looking for a "higher level" language to "put significant investment into."

Further, the JVM is keeping non-Windows OSs relevant in the server room and Oracle/Sun has done a lot to compete with the CLR and part of this is having a broader selection of languages on the JVM. As long as Oracle can monetize the JVM, they are interested in having more languages on the JVM.

I very like scala, because it is productive and good performance. So I threw the questions.

As we know, ASF provided a lot of helpful components for java development, for example, ant, maven, log4j, axis, tomcat and so on. Its resign from JCP.

The ASF was only a member of the JCP for 8 years, and for the 4 years prior to that (the JCP was formed in 1998 and the ASF joined in 2002), the ASF did much of its best work on Java libraries.

Martin developed GJ ( http://homepages.inf.ed.ac.uk/wadler/pizza/gj/ ) without inside access to the JVM or to the Java libraries. He was not a member of any Sun/Java committees when he did this work. He wrote software that ran on the JVM (and the political climate at Sun when Martin developed GJ was very hostile towards any non-Java languages on the JVM.)

Scala can smoothly interact with java, so the projects based on scala and using the components could be impacted. The impact could be side-effect for scala.

I think you mis-understand how software works and how it is developed. As long as you call valid APIs, your code will run.

Microsoft Windows was closed, proprietary software, but it had APIs. Lots of third parties used those APIs to create software that competed with Microsoft's offerings. Sure, Microsoft had private APIs that made their competitive products run marginally better (e.g., Excel was marginally slicker than 1-2-3), but the likes of Netscape (now Firefox) and the Sun with the JVM itself were able to continue to deliver solid products that owned a lot of market share even when Microsoft was using it's monopoly power to compete with those offerings.

The JVM has a well defined API. Oracle is not going to break that API (that would cause much worse long term damage because a key Java/JVM feature is backward compatibility). So, as long as Scala continues to emit valid byte-code and makes calls on valid Java library APIs, your Scala programs will run just fine and there's very little Oracle can do about it.

Put another way, Martin has never had to be part of JCP committees to do some of the key innovations in the Java language and other JVM languages. That's not going to change.

Apache Foundation was an important voice in the JCP regarding "Java Communitie". Its departure is a real loss for that, but I would say it's "just" in the normal course of what Oracle bought Java for - PI and short term money. Of course, that may damage Java/JVM ecosystem as a whole in the medium term.

That being said, I just don't see what are the link between ASF decision and your two questions ?

What impacts will it bring scala?

Not even the least direct one, Scala and ASF are in no way related, no more than Scala and JCP are. So, appart for long-term and unclear impacts linked to Java ecosystem being less appealing, I don't understand what you asked.

Is reality it that scala move to a new VM? Or to develop a VM for scala?

There is at least three main reasons to not want to develop a VM for Scala:
- it's a HUGE task. I mean, Google is just starting to have a rather OK VM after several years (4 ?), infinite money and among the greatest developpers ;
- Scala could be port to other VMs (CLR, for example);
- and finally... The current JVMs aren't going to desapear because some foundation left some organization, so what is just the link with the subject ?

Re: Apache resigns from JCP

Developers of commercial enterprise solutions who are looking beyond Java and MS.net are likely
to be attracted by a new language like Scala if
(1) it runs on either big VM (JVM or CLR) and provides good inter-operability with existing
libraries;
(2) it reaches the higher abstraction level provided by FP, which demonstrated its potential
with RoR.

Alternate VMs have no chance of entering a corporate server room.

The key success factor is IMHO to make (1) an efficient reality in the long term, which implies to:
(1) maintain Scala on the same level on both VMs;
(2) drive Java in a way that strengthens Scala and avoid competition on redundant features.

Following David's comment, we can hope that Oracle can welcome and support this evolution.

Robert.

Le 10/12/2010 17:50, David Pollak a écrit :

>
>
> On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 8:03 AM, Brick Red <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>>
> wrote:
>
> In long term view for JDK, Oracle will change java to close step by step.
>
>
> And you know this how? While it's reasonable to assume that Oracle will seek to monetize
> Java, but Oracle has a reasonable track record of using the likes of the GPL to monetize open
> source software.
>
> I worry that it could not be free to run scala code on JVM, it will impact the development
> of java, scala and jvm-based language.
>
>
> This is 100% divergent from Oracle's public and private stand on JVM languages in general, and
> Scala in particular. Oracle is likely to be looking to end the JCP, but in recent years, the
> JCP has been a failure. It's the same group of people making the same bad decisions (see
> JSR-299 http://jcp.org/en/jsr/detail?id=299 which is the same failed patterns that we saw with
> CORBA and Enterprise Java Beans). Allowing the JCP to self-destruct isn't a bad thing.
>
> On the other hand, Oracle has been particularly supportive of alternative JVM languages. Adam
> Messinger ( http://www.linkedin.com/in/adammessinger ) was pretty blunt at the JVM Languages
> Summit this year about Java the language reaching it's logical end and how Oracle is looking
> for a "higher level" language to "put significant investment into."
>
> Further, the JVM is keeping non-Windows OSs relevant in the server room and Oracle/Sun has
> done a lot to compete with the CLR and part of this is having a broader selection of languages
> on the JVM. As long as Oracle can monetize the JVM, they are interested in having more
> languages on the JVM.
>
> I very like scala, because it is productive and good performance. So I threw the questions.
>
> As we know, ASF provided a lot of helpful components for java development, for example,
> ant, maven, log4j, axis, tomcat and so on. Its resign from JCP.
>
>
> The ASF was only a member of the JCP for 8 years, and for the 4 years prior to that (the JCP
> was formed in 1998 and the ASF joined in 2002), the ASF did much of its best work on Java
> libraries.
>
> Martin developed GJ ( http://homepages.inf.ed.ac.uk/wadler/pizza/gj/ ) without inside access
> to the JVM or to the Java libraries. He was not a member of any Sun/Java committees when he
> did this work. He wrote software that ran on the JVM (and the political climate at Sun when
> Martin developed GJ was very hostile towards any non-Java languages on the JVM.)
>
> Scala can smoothly interact with java, so the projects based on scala and using the
> components could be impacted. The impact could be side-effect for scala.
>
>
> I think you mis-understand how software works and how it is developed. As long as you call
> valid APIs, your code will run.
>
> Microsoft Windows was closed, proprietary software, but it had APIs. Lots of third parties
> used those APIs to create software that competed with Microsoft's offerings. Sure, Microsoft
> had private APIs that made their competitive products run marginally better (e.g., Excel was
> marginally slicker than 1-2-3), but the likes of Netscape (now Firefox) and the Sun with the
> JVM itself were able to continue to deliver solid products that owned a lot of market share
> even when Microsoft was using it's monopoly power to compete with those offerings.
>
> The JVM has a well defined API. Oracle is not going to break that API (that would cause much
> worse long term damage because a key Java/JVM feature is backward compatibility). So, as long
> as Scala continues to emit valid byte-code and makes calls on valid Java library APIs, your
> Scala programs will run just fine and there's very little Oracle can do about it.
>
> Put another way, Martin has never had to be part of JCP committees to do some of the key
> innovations in the Java language and other JVM languages. That's not going to change.
>
> David
>
>
> Regard,
> Brick
>
> On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 3:45 PM, Francois Armand <[hidden email]> <mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:
>
> Le 10/12/2010 03:58, Brick Red a écrit :
>
> Hi buddies,
>
>
> Apache Foundation was an important voice in the JCP regarding "Java Communitie". Its
> departure is a real loss for that, but I would say it's "just" in the normal course of
> what Oracle bought Java for - PI and short term money. Of course, that may damage
> Java/JVM ecosystem as a whole in the medium term.
>
> That being said, I just don't see what are the link between ASF decision and your two
> questions ?
>
>
>
> What impacts will it bring scala?
>
>
> Not even the least direct one, Scala and ASF are in no way related, no more than Scala
> and JCP are. So, appart for long-term and unclear impacts linked to Java ecosystem
> being less appealing, I don't understand what you asked.
>
>
>
> Is reality it that scala move to a new VM? Or to develop a VM for scala?
>
>
> There is at least three main reasons to not want to develop a VM for Scala:
> - it's a HUGE task. I mean, Google is just starting to have a rather OK VM after
> several years (4 ?), infinite money and among the greatest developpers ;
> - Scala could be port to other VMs (CLR, for example);
> - and finally... The current JVMs aren't going to desapear because some foundation
> left some organization, so what is just the link with the subject ?
>
>
> --
> Francois Armand
> http://fanf42.blogspot.com>
>
>
>
>
> --
> Lift, the simply functional web framework http://liftweb.net> Beginning Scala http://www.apress.com/book/view/1430219890> Follow me: http://twitter.com/dpp> Blog: http://goodstuff.im> Surf the harmonics

Re: Apache resigns from JCP

The ASF was only a member of the JCP for 8 years, and for the 4 years prior to that (the JCP was formed in 1998 and the ASF joined in 2002), the ASF did much of its best work on Java libraries.

Martin developed GJ ( http://homepages.inf.ed.ac.uk/wadler/pizza/gj/ ) without inside access to the JVM or to the Java libraries. He was not a member of any Sun/Java committees when he did this work. He wrote software that ran on the JVM (and the political climate at Sun when Martin developed GJ was very hostile towards any non-Java languages on the JVM.)

In my opinion it has long been shown that "comities" and "processes" don't create good software (JCP: Java Community Process ... the "community" always take the form of commity right ?)

in fact I would go as far as saying that commities and processes are bad for any kind of creative work. So I really don't see the JCP falling into irrelevance as an issue.